Macros

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot: every step is parsed and validated first, modal/lifecycle commands and implicit effect presets are refused, and export macros require explicit outputTo. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs before calling a destructive tool. It does not say whether an applied macro is undoable or atomic on partial failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the list/apply distinction and followed by the guardrails in priority order. No filler; each sentence contributes a distinct constraint. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Export macros need explicit outputTo') but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation risk, validation behavior, refusal conditions and a conditional parameter requirement. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement on undoability of apply, and no explanation of what 'local' macros are or where they come from.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain dryRun semantics and the outputTo requirement for export macros, and the first sentence implicitly frames the action enum (list vs apply). However, the 'name' parameter is never characterized — no note on whether it is a macro name, case sensitivity, or how to discover valid names — leaving one of four params undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names two concrete verbs (list, apply) against a specific resource (saved local Audacity macros) and contrasts it with the Macro Manager UI, so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It stops short of naming a sibling tool it competes with (e.g. audacity_command or audacity_batch), which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the way to run macros without the GUI, and that dryRun is the preview path. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y', and no guidance on when apply is preferred over scripting via audacity_command.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.